or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music - Page 2

post #41 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc View Post

You might want to do the same.

My intention wasn't to bring politics into it but those that do (maybe you) had better know US history and understand that there is a difference between being a monopoly and the abuse of a monopoly. Only one of those things are illegal.
post #42 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Lawsuits and government investigations, and we pay for it all either through higher taxes or higher prices. It all sucks.

No, it doesn't all suck, IMHO. Government does a lot of good. A lot. I'll bet this will be a very quick investigation.
post #43 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Congratulations on the most idiotic post of the month.

Why? Because you can't accept the truth?
post #44 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Lawsuits and government investigations, and we pay for it all either through higher taxes or higher prices. It all sucks.

OTOH, maybe a few well placed government investigations might have prevented the implosion of the financial industry, may have prevented the mine collapse, and may have prevented the BP spill. Maybe a few well placed government investigations might have saved the American taxpayer some money.
post #45 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

Obviously you were asleep when Bush was handing out the bailout checks.

Also, the reason Apple is focused on by the DoJ is because of the large share of Apple controlled music sales. The labels don't want that, just as much as Apple's competition. Music execs believe that if Apple didn't have a stranglehold on them, they could charge more for their music and increase their profit margin. Which, as a Republican, I'm surprised you're not supporting.

I think the point here is that the free market should run it's course (within reason) and not have unnecessarily regulation. Otherwise business has no incentive to succeed, and innovation is stifled.

Most political parties who lean towards socialism tend to favour excessive regulation. In your case the Democrats. In the UK, the Labour party was also keen on overregulation, and it's policies were based on ideologies rather than logic.
post #46 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This is a tough one. Any company in Apple's position (as the third most valuable company in the US) would be on the radar screen constantly.

Apple simply has to live with the fact that bigness -- and they are now humongous in many segments -- brings with it scrutiny that we (as Apple consumers and shareholders) are not used to. Indeed, scrutiny that Apple is not used to.

The company has to learn to live with it, and watch its every step, it's every action, its every statement. It has to start second-guessing itself constantly. That is the new reality.

Totally agree...and there is one thing, although subtle, that will trigger these types of investigations...Amazon offered a deal...

"Amazon was seeking to obtain exclusive rights to sell new music a day earlier than everyone else, in exchange for special "MP3 Daily Deal" promotion of those songs on its website."

Note: they offered a deal but no retaliation if they didn't agree to it. There is no harm in asking...

"the DoJ is reportedly looking at Apple for asking the labels to not participate in Amazon's promotion, and its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first."

Note: Key words here..."its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first.".
post #47 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Hey, if they want to start an anti-trust investigation, start with Walmart. IMO, this is just another government-led shakedown.

Who the hell do you think filed a request to have the DoJ investigate?

WalMart, Amazon and the others behind Apple.

Apple can file the same with the DoJ, if it wants.
post #48 of 106
"US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music"

How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?
post #49 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

I think the point here is that the free market should run it's course (within reason) and not have unnecessarily regulation. Otherwise business has no incentive to succeed, and innovation is stifled.

Most political parties who lean towards socialism tend to favour excessive regulation. In your case the Democrats. In the UK, the Labour party was also keen on overregulation, and it's policies were based on ideologies rather than logic.

Let us hear it for financial innovation, it has done so much good for the world. Yes, the unregulated, free market, non-transparent credit default swap is certainly the type of innovation we wish to incentivize and have more of. Just look at the benefit it has brought.
post #50 of 106
Successes leading to dominance brought about by customer preference and satisfaction should not be confused by dominance brought about by a monopolistic position. The line "Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!" sums this up well (from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll )
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #51 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

OTOH, maybe a few well placed government investigations might have prevented the implosion of the financial industry, may have prevented the mine collapse, and may have prevented the BP spill. Maybe a few well placed government investigations might have saved the American taxpayer some money.

Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.

So let's drop the political nonsense on this board.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #52 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.

So let's drop the political nonsense on this board.

Let's not forget our system has three branches of Government and the built in checks and balances make the pronouncements of simplistic generalizations based on the likes or dislikes of one particular branch, be that the Executive, Judicial or Legislative, inaccurate in most cases.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #53 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Let us hear it for financial innovation, it has done so much good for the world. Yes, the unregulated, free market, non-transparent credit default swap is certainly the type of innovation we wish to incentivize and have more of. Just look at the benefit it has brought.

Evidence abounds to support your position for sure. Unfortunately a knee jerk political move to the other extreme has been shown by history to suffer the same issues in one way or another. The problem seems to be IMHO the perpetual propensity of the democratic system to encourage extreme view points to sway the electorate. It is almost impossible for balanced, fair and honest governance to exist due to man's inability not to try to cheat the system. The old joke 'benevolent dictatorship is the best answer' has some merit if it were ever possible for it to last. Perhaps the answer will lie with handing over power to a computer one day! I just hope it's made by Apple
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #54 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"the music industry has chafed because Apple sets prices and controls the relationship to the music buyers."
.

Apple sets prices but the music industry fix prices, plus payola scams. The only digital relation they have is sue people, since they are too stupid to build a digital business model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherperson View Post

"US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music"

How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?

they were busted a few years ago by the NYS Attorney General for payola, I think. I dont quiet remember.
post #55 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Let's just say that BOTH parties have screwed up our government very, very badly for the past 20-30 years and leave it at that. It's really hard to tell the two parties apart any more - other than the fact that each party tends to coddle a different group of benefactors.

I'm sorry, but this is just the most pernicious idea that has ever been propounded*. Can you really imagine the recently passed health care bill being even proposed by Republicans, especially in its original form? Do you think the party in the White House has no impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court? There are absolutely enormous practical and ideological differences between the political parties in the US, and those differences have only solidified and widened over the last 50 years.

Don't confuse the fact that our political system was intentionally designed to mute these differences in its outcomes with the idea that they don't exist. And, in fact, if you actually look at legislation and policy, both the specifics and the focus, that are implemented when each party is in power, the differences, and the impact on our lives and quality of life, are readily apparent.

I would also take exception with the idea that both parties have screwed up our government, but that discussion would be too overtly political for this forum.


* Because it leads people to the conclusion that it doesn't matter who they vote for or who is elected. This is particularly dangerous when it leads people to do things like blindly vote against incumbents simply because they "want change", which really means they are fed up with the bottlenecks of our political system that prevent anything from being accomplished. The mistake they make is the idea that this is due to the "corrupting influence of incumbency" rather than the design of the system.
post #56 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherperson View Post

"US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music"

How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?

Why? Because of this...
http://www.tipb.com/images/stories/2...bying-2009.gif
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/RIAA-s....html?x=0&.v=1


Apple only ponied up 1.5M in lobbying efforts - the RIAA pays about that much (if not more) each quarter.
post #57 of 106
It only seems logical that Apple wouldn't want to invest in promoting songs on which they are guaranteed to not be able to make any first day sales on, that's likely a hefty portion of the revenues for some music.

What they should be looking at here is a) Amazon's ability to leverage it's power as a retailer at the expense of a competitor and b) the recording industry's attempts to manipulate the marketplace by favoring specific retailers.
post #58 of 106
This happens to any company that becomes successful in any market, because competitors that have a hard time competing with you complain to the government instead of trying to compete. Monopolies cannot be had without government providing them. In a free market consumers are in charge of who wins and who loses.

Anti-trust legislation is simply a way for those that can't compete to strike at their competitors with the heavy hand of government.

It doesn't surprise me, however, at the hypocrisy when things like this happen. As someone already stated, if this were to be Microsoft then most of you wouldn't have a problem with it.

The problem is anti-trust laws are no good for anyone, they were not created to stop monopolies like you were taught in school. For a good article on why anti-trust legislation should be eliminated altogether go here http://mises.org/daily/4397

Apple should be able to strike deals with whoever it wants, and so should any other organization. If consumers don't like it they'll find alternatives elsewhere, as long as the market is kept free enough for organizations to provide alternatives without the threat of force being used against them.

Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.
post #59 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdav View Post

So a music wholesaler has four customers, and he offers a sweet deal to one of them, while refusing to extend the same deal to the others.

He is then seriously surprised to find out one of his customers is not supporting the marketing his products anymore?


If that one of his customers is using its market power to illegitimately thwart competition, he'd likely be surprised. That was not a strategy that could legally be used.

I have no real opinion concerning the facts of this situation. It is just an inquiry, looking for more facts. No charges have been leveled.
post #60 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwfrederick View Post

what bull$hit. apple builds a successful business (being one of the very few companies with self-imposed integrity), with the music execs fighting them every step of the way, and now theyre complaining that apple is too powerful? i cant believe morons like this are going to be in charge of our healthcare, thanks obama. seriously, who in their right mind votes for democrats? oh, right, only delusional crazies who cant tell the difference between emotion and logic

meanwhile, banks are given blank checks with no strings attached to sit on their ass and do nothing to kick start the economy. maybe apple needs to give obama 900k..


Read it and weep:

----
Administration Plans to Strengthen Antitrust Rules

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/bu...antitrust.html

WASHINGTON President Obamas top antitrust official this week plans to restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.
post #61 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The company has to learn to live with it, and watch its every step, it's every action, its every statement. It has to start second-guessing itself constantly. That is the new reality.


They need not watch every step.

They only need to watch out when they try to screw their competitors. They need to ask them selves if their strategy would work if they had no real dominant position in the industry.

There are lots and lots of things that normal businesses can do which monopolists cannot do. For example, the corner store can sell things below cost, in an effort to get customers in the door.

But if Mall*Wart did it for months and months, to put every corner store out of business in a 20 mile radius, they would face anti-trust scrutiny.

Lots of other stuff too - bundling products for example (saying that if you want to buy the monopoly-power good, you must also buy lots of other stuff for which we have competition). Any business can offer bundled products - except that one who has monopoly power must not use that power to illegitimately thwart competition.
post #62 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Haveing 24% of the market is not a trust.


Being a "trust" ain't got nothing to do with nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The laws purpose is to protect the dumb or out of Touch. In this regard Apple gas done nothing to deserve this investigation.


Dave


The purpose of anti-trust laws are to protect the economy and to aid capitalism by fostering competition between actors. Protecting the dumb has no part of the purpose here.
post #63 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Lawsuits and government investigations, and we pay for it all either through higher taxes or higher prices. It all sucks.



This lawsuit, if it is ever filed, is designed to aid the consumer by fostering competition. That will, if the theory of capitalism is correct, result in a better situation for consumers.
post #64 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple should j
threaten to relocate to the Caymans or another Tax haven to avoid paying any taxation in the US and tell the government to go f*ck themselves.


Excuse me. You are putting the interests of a CE company (whose products you like) above the interests of our country?

What the heck? Where do your loyalties lie? "I don't care what happens to this country - so long as I can buy an iPod cheap!"
post #65 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighugedave View Post

This happens to any company that becomes successful in any market, because competitors that have a hard time competing with you complain to the government instead of trying to compete. Monopolies cannot be had without government providing them. In a free market consumers are in charge of who wins and who loses.

Anti-trust legislation is simply a way for those that can't compete to strike at their competitors with the heavy hand of government.

It doesn't surprise me, however, at the hypocrisy when things like this happen. As someone already stated, if this were to be Microsoft then most of you wouldn't have a problem with it.

The problem is anti-trust laws are no good for anyone, they were not created to stop monopolies like you were taught in school. For a good article on why anti-trust legislation should be eliminated altogether go here http://mises.org/daily/4397

Apple should be able to strike deals with whoever it wants, and so should any other organization. If consumers don't like it they'll find alternatives elsewhere, as long as the market is kept free enough for organizations to provide alternatives without the threat of force being used against them.

Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.

So I gather you thought it was a bad idea for authorities in the US and Europe to go after Microsoft?
post #66 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Is that all you got? The main threat from Apple was that they would remove the artist off the main headlines on iTunes. Maybe you didn't read it. This does not equal a monopoly. All Apple asked for was equal treatment.


Apple said:

"If you want to sell your item in our store, the only one with the market power sufficient to rack up lots of sales, you may not aid our competitor in their efforts to gain market share."

Sorry. That sounds like an abuse of market power. I don't know if it rises to the status of illegal.
post #67 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by applestockholder View Post

Why the Fk investigating Apple,


Because it appears that they might be using their market power to disadvantage YOU, the consumer.
post #68 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Haveing 24% of the market is not a trust.

The 68% of the online market is the dominant position about which the DoJ is inquiring.
post #69 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

It doesn't matter how careful Apple is. They will get harassed until they pay like everyone else. Apple is not paying enough.

This is ridiculous. You are equating lobbying with corruption, and essentially arguing that if Apple doesn't pay "protection" to the government that they will be shaken down as if the government was Al Capone or something.

"anantksundaram" is totally right in that this is something that "comes with bigness," but the government, especially the DoJ, doesn't investigate companies on a whim, nor does it investigate the companies the White House tells it to, nor does it investigate companies that don't "pay up." As with most criminal complaints, it investigates at the behest of a complainant that makes a case against the company in question and raises possible legal issues that require an investigation to solve.

If this investigation is, as AppleInsider notes, mostly about whether or not they screwed over Amazon, then you can bet that Amazon initiated the complaint with the DoJ.

The sad thing about "being big" is that every other company will use whatever means to take a pot shot at you. All the patent suits, all the complaints, all the investigations, are because Apple is "big," but also because Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and a host of other companies are using their legal teams to try to slow down Apple's progress. It happens all the time.
post #70 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwfrederick View Post

and if you must know, i feel exactly the same about medicaid and social security. they are complete disasters (i work in the medical field). however, although some sort of safety net is a necessary evil, it is a FAR cry from the kind of control obama is exerting on so much of the economy.

Ok. So what exactly is your proposal? Or are you one of those Faux News people who just bitch about everything and offer up nothing in terms of how to "fix" all those things they deem as wrong.
post #71 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


What they should be looking at here is a) Amazon's ability to leverage it's power as a retailer at the expense of a competitor and b) the recording industry's attempts to manipulate the marketplace by favoring specific retailers.


I can't imagine that those aspects will be neglected in the inquiry. They are background facts.

However, I can't see that either of those are illegal.
post #72 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighugedave View Post

Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.


The whole intent of anti-trust laws is to put consumers in charge.

Without meaningful competition in the relevant market, the corporation is in charge. That is the whole point.

Antitrust laws use the power of government to aid consumers. Government keeps the markets free of anti-competitive behavior by corporations who are in a position to employ those tactics.

And we, the consumers, elect the government.
post #73 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Apple said:

"If you want to sell your item in our store, the only one with the market power sufficient to rack up lots of sales, you may not aid our competitor in their efforts to gain market share."

Sorry. That sounds like an abuse of market power. I don't know if it rises to the status of illegal.


Sorry, but I think what's been reported is this: the DoJ is reportedly looking at Apple for asking the labels to not participate in Amazon's promotion, and its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first.
AFAIK they weren't refusing to sell, only promote ... big difference.
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #74 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I can't imagine that those aspects will be neglected in the inquiry. They are background facts.

However, I can't see that either of those are illegal.

It looks an awful lot like collusion between Amazon and the recording industry to cement their respective positions and control.
post #75 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

The whole intent of anti-trust laws is to put consumers in charge.

Without meaningful competition in the relevant market, the corporation is in charge. That is the whole point.

Antitrust laws use the power of government to aid consumers. Government keeps the markets free of anti-competitive behavior by corporations who are in a position to employ those tactics.

And we, the consumers, elect the government.

A minor (but I think important) clarification: Antitrust laws were not created to protect consumers. In the U.S. at least, they were created in an era before the word "consumer" was even used. They were designed to protect and encourage competition in markets. When for instance the government sued Standard Oil over their anticompetitive practices, the concern was not for how much consumers were paying for petroleum products (which was actually quite low), but for they way SO used their vertically and horizontally integrated business to muscle competitors out of their market.

Now, in the end of course the benefits of competitive markets should accrue to consumers, but that's not the driving force behind the laws. They are first and foremost about fostering a competitive business environment.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #76 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It looks an awful lot like collusion between Amazon and the recording industry to cement their respective positions and control.

They can't collude, by definition, since they are not in the same market. If the recording industry conspired together to fix prices, then that would be a cartel, which is illegal under the antitrust laws.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #77 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwfrederick View Post

what bull$hit. apple builds a successful business (being one of the very few companies with self-imposed integrity)...

Successful? Absolutely. "Self-imposed integrity"? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Quote:
seriously, who in their right mind votes for democrats?

Apparently your beloved Steve Jobs. You did know that Al Gore is on the Apple BoD, no?
post #78 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

lolz. If this was Microsoft under exactly the same situation, people would be having a field day about how they deserved it. Strangely, using your market leading position to prevent innovation/competition from other companies is bad.

I just wish Amazon would get international stores working.

If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, you could do better than prefacing them with lolz.

I would argue that Apple is well within its rights to try and prevent exclusive deals with other retailers. Apple does not have a 70% position in the retail market for music, it has a 26% position. Separating online/offline sales is not logical.

Normally I would root for the underdog or the industry being underserved, but here we're talking about music executives. These music companies are the ones who failed to innovate and had to rely on Apple to sell their music. These are the same guys who sat on the same model for over 4-6 decades and did not change their business one bit.

As for competitors to Apple in the retail business, I would encourage them to participate. Apple created the online music business. If someone else decides to compete, it needs to know that the battle is going to be hard. You can't use the DoJ as your hired muscle to get a leg up in your business, which is what most people appear to be doing.
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
post #79 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherperson View Post

"US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music"

How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?


When Obama was elected he placed a LOT of RIAA lawyers in the DOJ.

Obama's bread is buttered from the media/porn/liberal Left. Not the oil/business/conservative Right.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...ama-taps-fift/


The music labels are still losing money, less with iTMS obviously but not a savior as they were likely led to believe.

Apple likely isn't providing detailed information on users music via iTunes to the RIAA for prosecution and supporting the lawyers through suits against the customers.

So the RIAA is trying to make Apple's life a bit uncomfortable and reduce their large market share of on line sales is my guess.
post #80 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Because it appears that they might be using their market power to disadvantage YOU, the consumer.

Uh no, in the music biz, Apple was the one pushing for lower, uniform prices. Then they had to bend over for the music guys eventually and offer tiered pricing.

As far as I know, getting the song exclusively from Amazon is AGAINST my interests. I would like it to be in many stores at the same time. It is also true that if a song is NOT promoted in iTunes, but still available to sell, it DOES NOT go against my interests.

I think you have an understanding of anti-competitive practices that ranges from completely bogus to somewhat naive. Two points to remember:
1> None of what is talked about affects the consumer. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I don't want exclusive deals. If, in fact, Apple was the one pushing for exclusive deals at the expense of Amazon, then we have a case.
2> Apple wasn't refusing to sell the music. That is a key point. So they won't put it front and center in the store. So?
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music